Analog Apologist

[mep]

Warning: The words written below were meant to poke fun at both analog lovers and digital lovers with more fun being poked at the digital lovers. If you are overly sensitive, have thin skin, can’t take a joke, or easily get your feelings hurt, please don’t read any further and have a nice day. You have been warned.

Ever feel like an analog apologist? I do sometimes when I am around digital heathens. All analog sources have varying degrees of background noise that usually disappear once the music starts. The digital heathens latch onto that background noise to tout the superiority of digital because it is squeaky clean. “They” (the digital heathens) forgot to notice that when music was turned into zeros and ones, some of the music was squeezed out during the squeaky clean process and fell into the bit bucket.

People that know and love the sound of music are willing to put up with the different background noise levels of analog because they know they will be rewarded by hearing more information than those who are listening to squeaky clean digital recordings that have had some of the music scrubbed out of them.

The benefits of digital are that your system will always be noise free between tracks which is comforting. You never have to neurose over an up and coming pop or tic you know is there. You never have to explain to your friends that once the music starts, you won’t hear any noise. All of your friends who aren’t terribly acquainted with the sound of live music will be impressed by the deathly quiet of your digital rig. Plus you get to sniff your nose in the air because your system is so noise free and therefore superior to all of those idiot analog lovers with their stupid turntables and crappy LPs.

I am trying to decide if digital heathens are more or less anal-retentive than analog audiophiles and that level of anal-retentiveness is already off the charts. Maybe the digital heathens are more anal-retentive when it comes to noise than analog lovers, but less anal-retentive when it comes to achieving the highest levels of music reproduction because obviously that can only be achieved via analog.

And who said this hobby wasn’t a scream?

 

[amirm]

I think it is fair to say that analog people have more explaining to do. It is not everyday that someone says technologies that is decades older is better . It is simply counterintuitive to people so you are immediately put on the defensive.

The digital guy doesn't have to defend anything in front of general public. The reverse is not even remotely true.

The digital guy can also show very good audio fidelity with very little money relative to the analog guy. That makes the analog guy having even more to justify: using older technology and paying even more for it! Double-strikes I would say .

I personally live in a mixed world. I can't stand the pops and inconvenience of analog sources regardless of its merits. So I do things like using tube amps and such giving me the level of enjoyment I need out of music and be happy.

 

[Gregadd]

First of all we are not heathens. WE have a god. It is music. We are not anal retentive. Like Ron Popeil we "set it and forget."
Talk about anal retentive. RCM,VTF, VTA, SRA, Antiskate, Anti Static, Quartz Locked, Electronic Speed Stabilizers.etc. By the time I went thru all those rituals I skipped the music and went out back for a beer.

 

[mep]

Amir-I agree with your first 3 statements. You could have added in trying to explain why you paid $300-$500 for a reel-to-reel tape of the equivalent of a CD's worth of music. But, how do you explain using antique technology like tube amps to people??

And Reginald, you say your god is music, but you are listening to it through a false prophet (couldn't resist that one). And I told you I was trying to decide which camp is the more anal-retentive and you brought up some good points that slants things in the analog direction. However, the DHers aren't immune either. I am sure some of them are chasing anit-vibration products, cable insulators, and magic power cords in attempt to reduce their digital silence to a new level of silence

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think it is fair to say that analog people have more explaining to do. It is not everyday that someone says technologies that is decades older is better . It is simply counterintuitive to people so you are immediately put on the defensive.

The digital guy doesn't have to defend anything in front of general public. The reverse is not even remotely true.

The digital guy can also show very good audio fidelity with very little money relative to the analog guy. That makes the analog guy having even more to justify: using older technology and paying even more for it! Double-strikes I would say .

I personally live in a mixed world. I can't stand the pops and inconvenience of analog sources regardless of its merits. So I do things like using tube amps and such giving me the level of enjoyment I need out of music and be happy.

I'd actually say it's the other way around. I'd put an inexpensive table up against more expensive digital gear any day

And you know the funny thing? While LPs may -and the better ones today are darned quiet-my have some surface noise, I can't tell you how many defective CDs I bought over the years eg. they skipped, wouldn't advance past a certain track, etc.

I remember in the early days putting a cheap Rega against the then SOTA $2000 CD player and it wasn't even close.

 

[amirm]

I'd actually say it's the other way around. I'd put an inexpensive table up against more expensive digital gear any day

Well, you are changing the goalpost. I can buy a new Sony DVD player for $30 and spin my CDs in there. How much would a comparable entry point turntable and cartridge cost putting aside the preamp which must go with it?

 

[mep]

I just knew my buddy Myles would pile on! I could have thrown in that DHers are lazier than analog lovers because they don't want to get out of their chair and do any "work" like cleaning their LPs or changing record sides. DHers are probably more apt to be wine drinkers and analog lovers are more the bourbon and beer crowd. We are used to rolling up our sleeves and getting a little dirty in order to extract the best sound possible. DHers sniff and swirl their wine while they listen to their "look ma-no hands digital" and delude themselves that they aren't missing anything other than some pops and tics.

Amir-you just flipped the goal post. Myles said he would put up a cheap turntable against an expensive digital rig. Now you are trying to out-cheap him by saying you can buy a Sony DVD player for $30 and you want him to crawl under that price with a record deck.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well, you are changing the goalpost. I can buy a new Sony DVD player for $30 and spin my CDs in there. How much would a comparable entry point turntable and cartridge cost putting aside the preamp which must go with it?

Granted the Sony is $30 but do you think it compares sonically to an inexpensive table? How much do you need to spend to approach the sound of the table?

 

[amirm]

Amir-you just flipped the goal post. Myles said he would put up a cheap turntable against an expensive digital rig. Now you are trying to out-cheap him by saying you can buy a Sony DVD player for $30 and you want him to crawl under that price with a record deck.

No, I brought up the subject so I get to control the conversation . I said that a digital guy can get substantially all of his format benefits for very little money. And gave an example of a $30 DVD player. Myles then changed the subject and said that a cheap turntable outperforms expensive CD players. That is a different topic altogether (i.e. a format fight).

Digital is popular because it is so cheap to achieve high performance with it and with advent of ripping music, hugely convenient. Neither one of these can be said about analog sources. Note that I said nothing about digital achieving the best absolute quality but rather, a cheap digital system achieving most of the performance of an expensive digital system.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Audiophiles, regardless of preference for Analog or Digital, are anal-retentive. That may seem like a very terse statement, but I think it's basically true. One doesn't have to be in one camp or the other to suffer through this indignity.

John

 

[markc2]

I think it is fair to say that analog people have more explaining to do. It is not everyday that someone says technologies that is decades older is better . It is simply counterintuitive to people so you are immediately put on the defensive.

I think the wild and crazy tube people might fit that part of the quote.


Mark

 

[Steve Williams]

Has anyone seen the Acura commercial on TV where they show a tube amplifier?

Very analogous

 

[mep]

Audiophiles, regardless of preference for Analog or Digital, are anal-retentive. That may seem like a very terse statement, but I think it's basically true. One doesn't have to be in one camp or the other to suffer through this indignity.

John

John-I actually agree with you 100% Between the analog lovers and DHers, it's just a matter of degree.

Mark

 

[mep]

I think the wild and crazy tube people might fit that part of the quote.


Mark

And geez Mark, I also fall into the "wild and crazy tube people" camp as well.

Mark

 

[MylesBAstor]

I just knew my buddy Myles would pile on! I could have thrown in that DHers are lazier than analog lovers because they don't want to get out of their chair and do any "work" like cleaning their LPs or changing record sides. DHers are probably more apt to be wine drinkers and analog lovers are more the bourbon and beer crowd. We are used to rolling up our sleeves and getting a little dirty in order to extract the best sound possible. DHers sniff and swirl their wine while they listen to their "look ma-no hands digital" and delude themselves that they aren't missing anything other than some pops and tics.

Amir-you just flipped the goal post. Myles said he would put up a cheap turntable against an expensive digital rig. Now you are trying to out-cheap him by saying you can buy a Sony DVD player for $30 and you want him to crawl under that price with a record deck.

And that $30 player would be virtually unlistenable.

 

[Gregadd]

Nothing like a good old analogue v digital food fight. Quick I think I hear the principal coming

Are those KT 88's and does anyone recognize the amp?

 

[mep]

Nothing like a good old analogue v digital food fight. Quick I think I hear the principal coming

Are those KT 88's and does anyone recognize the amp?

The amp appears to be a Jolida with KT-88 tubes. Jolida amps are cheap as far as tube amps go. And who doesn't love a good food fight?

 

[mep]

And that $30 player would be virtually unlistenable.

But the $30 player would have the deathly digital silence that digital lovers love. It's really the only thing they can thump their chest over.

 

[MylesBAstor]

But the $30 player would have the deathly digital silence that digital lovers love. It's really the only thing they can thump their chest over.

Silence isn't golden?

 

[Gregadd]

First of all we have got to get Myles a first class cd player. Maybe he could pawn that r2r. You only need it every once and a while for those few magnificent tapes you have. Another thing I like that I can play my favorite song many times in a row without worrying about record wear. Sometimes I get so much music on one cd I can't even listen to them all in one setting.